From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12813 invoked by alias); 13 May 2004 13:30:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12805 invoked from network); 13 May 2004 13:30:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 May 2004 13:30:51 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.33 #1 (Debian)) id 1BOGIU-00062i-2B; Thu, 13 May 2004 09:30:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Hilfinger Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB interaction with sigwait under Redhat 9.0 Message-ID: <20040513133049.GA23187@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Hilfinger , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040512083348.55D63F2D8B@nile.gnat.com> <20040512135530.GA25764@nevyn.them.org> <20040513093318.C13DDF2A64@nile.gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040513093318.C13DDF2A64@nile.gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:33:18AM -0400, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:33:48AM -0400, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > > > > I recently submitted PR threads/1641 concerning a problem we seem to > > > be having with Redhat 9.0 (Linux ... 2.4.21-9.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Jan 8 > > > 17:08:56 EST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux). It appears that on that > > > system, there is a new, malign interaction of sigwait in the inferior > > > with ptrace. First, GDB (head version from about mid-April), no > > > longer sees signals sent to an inferior that is waiting on sigwait. Second, > > > GDB's manipulation with the inferior causes sigwaits (at least on > > > pthreaded programs) to continue with a non-zero status code (EINTR to > > > be precise). Does anyone know anything about this rather drastic change > > > in sigwait's behavior? I intend to submit a GNU/Linux bug report, unless > > > someone knows a good reason for this new (apparently undocumented) spec. > > > > However, you never > > said what version of the Linux kernel you were using - it does not look > > like 2.6 can produce this result. But then I don't see how an > > unmodified 2.4 can either. > > Sorry; I thought the 2.4.21-9.ELsmp part of the uname -a line was > sufficient. In fact, not being a kernel hacker myself, I'm not sure what > information you're looking for here. Oh, it is - I just missed it. Sounds like you want to talk to your kernel vendor. -- Daniel Jacobowitz